D+

D

D-

F

Looking like a 134 million dollar four day cume, now, with an estimated 52 million Friday.

Just imagine how well it would be doing if it had held on to that 60% Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

Click to expand...

Okay ... not really sure what this has to do with anything.

You seem to think you're shoving it into our faces that the film is doing well in spite of its RT score, but no one said that it was going to bomb. You might want to try actually reading the posts you're supposedly making fun of before you start with your standard routine.

Just read Mark Waid's review. Hmmm - I've been having a hard time with everyone's upset over the "collateral damage" issue and I think I just figured out why. I mean I get it from a perspective of an iconic character having certain basic characteristics and one of Superman's is that he always protects, even in the midst of a big fight. But, given from what a different point this particular version of Superman begins, I'm just not sure it's a valid in-story criticism.

I'm a little undecided on this, but here goes: the crux of this story is that Clark is deeply alienated from humanity. Mostly people are shown being shitty to him. He's not really bitter, but he's in a place of extreme caution. He helps where he can - but always with one eye toward staying as incognito as possible. He's been raised to consider that letting people die to protect his secret may be a valid choice. He's not sure that humans are his people.

So into this comes a challenge far greater than any he's ever imagined. He's an inexperienced fighter - and a good deal is made of this, both in the fight scenes and in the midst of Zod's monologing at the end. He's basically barely holding his own to keep the Kryptonians from killing him. I think this combination of factors makes it hard to imagine how he'd even be able to physically protect others, and he seems so unsure of his position with humanity that he just hasn't developed the instincts yet to think about how to try to save a bunch of humans in the middle of these fights. I think the whole point of the climactic end of his fight with Zod may have been intended to show that these things are coming to form the core of him. He is finally identifying with humans and with his role as their protector.

On the other hand, the film does proceed as if everyone, including Clark, are able to move blithely on after the massive destruction of Metropolis, without a moments mourning, or even acknowledgement of what had to be massive loss of life. I can sort of write it off as movie logic (name a superhero movie where there is significant screen time spent on regret after the massive destruction of the final fight), though the scale of it in this movie makes that a little harder than usual.

I guess it comes down to whether it's important to you that Superman be a character with such a strong inborn personality trait that protecting people always comes first. I can appreciate the idealism in that, but it feels very... naïve to me. And it kinda makes him a less interesting character because that character has a moral compass stuck on Always Unattainably Good and Self-Sacrificing. He's got nothing to strive for, no part of himself to triumph over. That guy can't ever surprise you and a story about him would have a hard time surprising you too.

Click to expand...

Well said. I completely agree with you. People have always complained that Superman was too boring of a character, that he was too perfect and he had no obstacles to overcome, but now they're complaining because he couldn't--or wouldn't--save everyone. You can't have it both ways.

Not being able to save everyone isn't the same as wantonly destroying big areas of the city and half of Smallville. Especially when in parts they were just after him, fly away, fight, come back. Or at least don't go throwing trains and other Kryptonians through buildings and supporting structures.

Not being able to save everyone isn't the same as wantonly destroying big areas of the city and half of Smallville. Especially when in parts they were just after him, fly away, fight, come back. Or at least don't go throwing trains and other Kryptonians through buildings and supporting structures.

Click to expand...

For the damage, there was never much he could do to minimize it, most of the damage to metropolis was done by the ship, in smallville Sups was on the defensive almost the whole time and so was never in much of a position to dictate where and how it was gonna go down. And against Zod, i don't see that their is much he could have done here either, the damage was gonna happen with or without him, I don't see Zod rushing after Sups if he made a run for it, why bother when going on a rampage would have brought him right back?

Plus lets not forget that this was a first time for Clark as well, he had never done anything like this before, never fought like this or gone up against people like this before, did he even realise how destructive it could get before it was too late and actually happening?

Saw it tonight and LOVED it. I think it's successful artistically and technically on numerous levels. Also, at long last, Man of Steel makes Superman an A-lister in superhero cinema, right up there with Batman, Iron Man and Spider-Man. It's about time.

I understand the most common criticisms--excessive destruction in lengthy fight scenes, not enough humor, Jonathan Kent's actions, etc. The critics may be right about these things, but there's so much more that is right about the film. We could not ask for a better ensemble of actors (including my favorite actress, Diane Lane). Krypton is presented as a far more interesting world than that glimpsed in the 1978 film. And of course, Superman faces adversaries who match him on a physical level.

I would have liked to see more of Clark's life after Smallville High. We know that he turned into a loner, working in unremarkable jobs. But did he ever attend college? We might guess that he did; any teenager (super-powered or not) seen holding a book about Plato probably wouldn't end his formal education with a high school diploma. That would not be enough to get Clark going in a new career in Metropolis, btw. There are a lot of gaps in this Clark Kent's life that we must leave to our imagination.

In the next few films, I hope that Superman battles Brainiac, meets other superheroes and creates a Fortress of Solitude.

Not being able to save everyone isn't the same as wantonly destroying big areas of the city and half of Smallville. Especially when in parts they were just after him, fly away, fight, come back. Or at least don't go throwing trains and other Kryptonians through buildings and supporting structures.

Click to expand...

For the damage, there was never much he could do to minimize it, most of the damage to metropolis was done by the ship, in smallville Sups was on the defensive almost the whole time and so was never in much of a position to dictate where and how it was gonna go down. And against Zod, i don't see that their is much he could have done here either, the damage was gonna happen with or without him, I don't see Zod rushing after Sups if he made a run for it, why bother when going on a rampage would have brought him right back?

Plus lets not forget that this was a first time for Clark as well, he had never done anything like this before, never fought like this or gone up against people like this before, did he even realise how destructive it could get before it was too late and actually happening?

Click to expand...

In Smallville he threw one of them through a petrol station causing it to explode, I seem to remember he threw one in to a train yard knocking trains off the tracks and then a train through a building, though that last one may have been them. In Metropolis he threw Zod through buildings and support struts and barely attempted to save people. Now granted Zod is going to kill people anyway but Clark wasn't even trying to limit the damage most of the time.

Just got back, and I thought it was freakin AWESOME. Cavill and Adams were great, I loved the way they shook up the origin story, and-- despite what the critics say-- I thought the movie was chock full of wonder and emotion.

I just don't understand what their problem with the movie was at all. Yeah, maybe the story's structure was a bit unconventional, but I had no problem following any of it and actually kind of liked how it kept you off balance a bit.

And while Avengers might have been more humorous and "fun", I found MOS to be far more emotionally engaging, and Clark's journey much easier to care about and get involved in. And the movie never felt oppressively dark or heavy to me either; I thought there were plenty of light and funny moments and plenty of nice, quiet character scenes. And while the action was certainly big and epic, it never grew tiresome or mindnumbing like it so often does in a Michael Bay movie (in fact I was actually surprised the various battles ended as quickly as they did).

And I don't understand the complaints about Superman himself either. Not only is his first move is to surrender to Zod in order to save Earth, but when he takes the action he does at the end, he's not only incredibly resistant, but devastated as hell after the fact. And we also see plenty of his humility, compassion, and self-sacrificing nature in the movie as well.

The only criticism I have is perhaps spending a little TOO much time on Krypton early on, and the somewhat abrupt way Superman is revealed to the world only through Zod's arrival and him being called out. I think I would have preferred seeing Supes introduced more on his own terms, and before the big invasion started.

But still, those are minor gripes and in the end I'd still have to give this movie an A. I freakin LOVED it, and can't wait to see it again.

(Also, was it just me or was there a moment when Cavill was looking up at the white energy beam that he looked dead-on like Christopher Reeve? I swear I got chills.)

Another thing that annoyed me, when he dons the suit - it's not epic, it doesn't feel monumental or a great weight. It' just a suit. Same with the flying scene, when he "learns" to fly properly - it's not really joyous, or monumental or any of that, he is just flying.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was plenty epic with the doors parting, him slowly striding out and coming into focus, Jor-El's inspiring voiceover, and the music building underneath.

And when he starts flying and has this totally amazed expression on his face, it's an absolutely joyous moment (although when he starts struggling it unfortunately reminded me a little TOO much of Greatest American Hero).

The death toll, and the way it's basically glossed over, is my biggest issue with the film. Superman felt anguish over his decision to defeat Zod - where was the similar anguish over the consequences of the battle which, while necessary, perhaps, was utterly devastating?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree the city's destruction probably should have been addressed in some way afterwards. And maybe we should have seen Superman anguishing more over the loss of life (or imploring Zod with one of Reeve's "No, Zod-- the PEOPLE!!!"), but at the same time he was clearly at WAR here, and the only real way to put an end to the destruction was to stop it at it's source and defeat Zod, which obviously took all the energy and focus he had.

I got that Jor-El was very reticent to kill Zod (that was obvious from the get-go), but I never got that vibe from the son till the very moment it happened.

Click to expand...

I thought it had been established pretty well by that point that killing went against everything Clark believed in and had been taught by his parents. He's never so much as hit a guy in anger before, and now he's being forced to snap a guy's neck. It was obvious how much that tore at him, and I thought the moment was powerful as hell-- especially when it appears that Zod was almost goading Superman to kill him because he had no more reason to live.

I'm surprised it's been getting such overwhelming praise to be honest. I liked it, the action was great, the visuals were superb (loved the look of Krypton), the casting was excellent but I was left feeling a bit flat when it ended.

About the collateral damage thing - I'm not bothered by the fact that Superman didn't try to save anyone in Metropolis (because the basic fact is that he can't), it's just that nobody really seemed to care all that much that all these people were dying.

I'm almost hoping they make it a part of the next film, perhaps if Lex tries to use all the destruction that occurred to try and persuade people that Superman does more harm than good.

I spoiler coded this early, maybe in the other thread, but here's my take on Jonathon's death.

It seemed pointless and over nothing. Jonathon goes back to the truck to save the dog. Which, I'm sorry, you're pretty much bred to simply not do in Kansas when it comes to going to safety from a tornado. You're told to get yourself and family to safety and to not worry about pets if you can't get to them. Going back to the car to save the dog was an idiotic move in the circumstances they were under. All of the humans were "safe" (an underpass, really, isn't all that safe place to be when covering from a tornado) Jonathon should've gotten to safety too and not worried about the damn dog. And I say this as a dog lover. Jonathon also, pretty much, "decides to die.'

Here's what I would have done:

Have a human trapped in a car or possibly a child cowering in a car than Jonathon and Clark go back to save/convince to come with them. They manage to save him/her and are running back for the underpass, along the way a gust of wind or debris from the tornado comes down and pins Jonathon by the leg. Clark stops and looks back and Jonathon says, "Go! I'll be right behind you!" Clark hesitates but continues on as Jonathon tries to free his trapped leg.

Clark makes it back to the underpass and hands the child off to his mom/the parent and looks to his dad whose still struggling to free himself, we see that the tornado is almost right on top of him. Clark looks as if he's going to speed in and do his thing but his father looks up to him and shakes his head just as the sweeping winds carry away Jonathon and the car.

THAT would've have meant something and seemed more like a dire situation rather than Jonathon standing there, having saved a dog, and just going. "Meh, don't save me."

A barely hidden desire to entertain people with massive destruction was always a prime feature of Nolan's Batman movies. Remember the monastery constructed from bricks of C4? That's why the fight scenes are dragged out so long as to get a little boring.

I didn't think Nolan could be associated with a movie that had a real woman in it! I have been far too disdainful. My apologies Mr. Nolan. (But you should still let Zimmer compose music, not just rumbly chords aimed at the gut.)

Using old SF ideas to deal with Superman being an alien gives him a real story. Being super doesn't mean he can't be hurt emotionally by humans. Making a leap of faith in them may not be as visually exciting as leaping over a building but it really is much more engaging.

Zod should have been sucked into the phantom zone along with the rest. Given the black magic of his mysterious survival there was no other way to deal with him, but it was entirely unnecessary and was arbitrarily tacked on to make it absolutely necessary for Superman to kill. Since there was no choice, it was not good drama and counts for zero as to the development of Superman as a character, unless you're fixated on the myth of the hero who must suffer the guilt of murder on our behalf. What I felt was that I was basically watching Nolan masturbate but after the Batman movies, what else is new?

PS Abandoning the dog may be a no brainer for ordinary Kansans, but the family knows the dog can be saved, granting the odd assumption that an underpass is sufficient shelter. People get irrational about pets. Clark letting the dog die would have been deliberate, while Jonathan was not irrational in thinking he probably had time. That whole clumsy business with the foot caught with the door was necessary precisely because otherwise Jonathan would have been successful. I was just grateful the schoolbus wasn't hanging off the side of the bridge. I'm sick of that one.

I really hope they don't focus on people mistrusting and/or hating Superman in the sequel. That's the "Marvel" way of storytelling and even at that, they avoid using it in the Avengers-verse movies. Iron Man is a celebrity and after saving New York, it doesn't seem as if the Avengers are viewed as anything less than heroes.

I understand introducing Lex and having him try to turn people against Superman, but I think there are more interesting ways to have him be a credible threat. What makes Lex work in the comics is that, even though he personally hates Superman and what he represents, but he doesn't try to whip that resentment up in the public. That helps him maintain a positive image amongst the public and it serves to create more of an impact when he manipulates things to show Superman aiding him.

Yeah I have to admit Jonathan going back for the dog was kinda silly and contrived. I thought for sure he was going back to get more people that he saw, but for some reason it ended up just being... a dog stuck in a car? Huh?

Still though, the final look between him and Clark was so powerful and emotional that I thought it made it totally worth it in the end.

So I loved the movie...not understanding some of the criticisms really...this is a modern movie made by the guy who revived the Batman franchise, did anyone think we'd here the circus music playing while slapstick humor was going on? Nope. So to not put to fine a point on it...Superman (1977) was still my favorite superhero movie, surviving assaults from Dark Knight and Iron Man, as well as Avengers to a lesser degree. I am also not a fan of multiple origin stories...but Man of Steel is probably the best overall superhero movie ever made. It had a superior and more integrated storyline involving the main antagonist than Iron Man, Avengers...hell the secondary Kryptonians were great too. A better and more believable alien invasion than Avengers. It was more dynamic and epic than Dark Knight. It had the most believable actor ever to play Superman (Sorry Chris Reeve). It was more serious than Iron Man...it wasn't totally humorless, but why can't we have a story about what a real superman might act like...something closer to Heroes from TV?

Had incredible world-building...made Krypton jump out at you like the re-creation when John Byrne first retold the Supes story, with believably advanced technology that still managed to be somewhat gritty and used looking. Terrific FX all around, they've improved the super speed and movement since the original Spiderman and Hulk movies. Saw it in Imax 3D, though frankly I though STID was better in this format than MoS.

I liked how they treated the Kryptonian's power...they were super in their armor but couldn't handle the senses Superman had learned over decades out of it. I did like how Zod was able to use his training and superior focus to slowly but surely do it too, and I knew an inevitable battle was going to take place between superpowered Kryptonians.

As with most movies, it's not perfect. I don't have a gripe about Superman killing, I think that might be necessary at times anyway, and lack of death is not believable in the super titan world of Kryptonians, but I had a problem with Superman NOT moving the battle off the coast...the city was demolished and no one had time to evacuate, the deaths had to be in the 10s of thousands.

Whether the world is ready or not, I'd be damned if I had super speed and powers and didn't save my dad from a tornado. I'd have saved him from tripping over a garden hose! I found this message to be oversold on this point.

File under too much of a good thing: Some judicious editing of the final 40 minutes could've shortened the movie by 10-12 minutes. But this is not a major gripe really.